Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. Matches

    Matches

    Limited Member


    • Points

      7

    • Posts

      70


  2. kbar

    kbar

    Contributors Tier 1


    • Points

      4

    • Posts

      536


  3. Cairyn

    Cairyn

    Developer


    • Points

      3

    • Posts

      800


  4. Pinin

    Pinin

    Limited Member


    • Points

      3

    • Posts

      160


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/04/2021 in all areas

  1. It's been very interesting following this thread for the last few weeks and reading all the different and passionate points of view, so I thought I'd throw my two cents in. Speaking frankly I'm pretty confused by the current direction of C4D. Working procedurally can definitely be a cool and efficient way to work, but Maxon's effort here seems to be mostly reactionary to get on board with what they perceive to be the new fad. IMO a procedural workflow really shines for dynamics and effects, and since C4D has no fluid system and not a much of a dynamics or particle system to speak of, I find little value in the procedural workflow. The idea of trying to compete with Houdini doesn't make much sense to me, since it will likely be many many years before C4D can even be considered a contender, and in the meantime C4D is trailing it's ACTUAL competitors in so many areas. Maya is already the artist friendly answer to effects with fantastic capabilities, while Blender is a great FREE alternative with an impressive host of features to boast. Neither software is perfect, but each one has areas where they excel and take no prisoners, such as Maya's amazing uv capabilities, or it's native renderer Arnold, or other fantastic features like Bifrost, Xgen, and Mash etc. Blender has really taken leaps and bounds to compete with Zbrush, and though Zbrush is the undefeated champion in terms of sheer polygon power, Blender has developed a rich sculpting program, and should be considered a viable alternative. Blender even beat Zbrush to the punch with their cloth brushes, although Pixologic quickly introduced this feature with highly impressive results, just like any smart developer would do to keep it's rep. Blender also has a realtime renderer, which is great for lookdev and maybe even final renders. This realization really hit home for me with a recent project; I finally gave up on C4D's neglected hair system and reintroduced myself to Xgen with the intention of using Arnold's proprietary USD system to render out of C4DtoA, when I had the sudden epiphany that Maya SHIPS with Arnold allowing me to forgo all that export hassle and render out of Arnold directly using Maya. Despite it's clunky and disorganized interface, I find myself moving to Maya more and more, which is ironic because C4D's interface is far superior to Maya's and that's one of the few 'features' Maxon chose to mess with. I could ramble on and on, but the basic point is that C4D has fast become a master at none, and really doesn't have a specialty area anymore. In my recent projects I have found myself using C4D less and less, opting to use other packages throughout the pipeline that are much more efficient and capable than C4D. I am confused by Maxon's decisions and wonder if they themselves know what their long-term goals are, but I guess time will tell. Thanks for reading 😀.
    6 points
  2. The issue with creating a sculpting system in a program that is built around the traditional concept of polygons with points, where all that data needs to live on the graphics card, is that you soon hit limitations on the Graphics card itself. To achieve millions of polygons you need to take a fundamentally different approach to how the data is handled... which is what ZBrush did. The limitations of doing that is that you no longer have traditional vertex data, so you can no longer do all the other work that you would normally associate with a 3D animation package. Can't animate moving 3D points if the concept of that XYZ point no longer exists. So for most DCC apps they won't ever reach the "100 million" polygons scale for sculpting unless they effectively break it away from all other systems and has its own separate viewport, tools and workflows. Then to get it back into the DCC app it would need to be baked down to make it usable. The benefit of having a sculpting system in a DCC, even with the limitation of maybe 4 to 6 million polys, is that those same tools can work with everything else in that DCC app as well, even on low polygon models. The tools can be completely integrated because it can use all the exact same data as everything else. This is why the C4D Sculpting tools can work on both high resolution "Sculpt Tag" based model as well as a regular Polygon Object directly in the viewport, or on a Pose Morph. A dedicated sculpting tool like Zbrush will always exist and be the master at sculpting at incredibly high detail. Because they can focus on doing just that and not have to think about any other workflow.
    3 points
  3. I didn't know where put this post, because it is partially about performance in character animation and partially about Blender. I choose this thread, I hope it's OK 🙂 I did some stress tests in C4D and Blender last week. I think, I experienced everything what I heard before about both softwares. The goal was clear - take a rigged model and make some tests - make a few copies of this model with riggs, add some density enviro to scene, make operation on keys with all bones selected etc. Of course these weren't a huge tests, I didn't touch many areas of 3d soft. But I have some conclusions 🙂 First of all, both programs impressed me. And yes - Blender has a better performance. Generally I have this feeling that all actions made in Blender are "lighter": from selecting objects to working with riggs. And yes - C4D is super user-friendly. And I think this is the price, we have to pay. But I have to mention that I could work with more than one riggs in a scene in C4D. It wasn't smooth, but was possible 🙂 And I think that this wasn't super heavy rigg. What next. Cycles is very nice and Eevee for quick previz is just amazing. I wonder how works Redshift, Octane and now Renderman in Blender. My general impression about C4D - is super solid software, maybe hasn't cool new toys on board, but "basics" work great. One test was pretty interesting. I took a heavy FBX file from Motion Builder. MoBu also has TAKE system and C4D could read all this TAKES - this is great! Blender had some problems with import enviro in proper way and, what is the most important, with import animation. Why? Because animation was in second TAKE in MoBu, not first, and I think Blender imported only first TAKE. I couldn't find the way to choose from which TAKE Blender should import animation data. Maybe there is some way to fix that, if you know a solution, please let me know 🙂 I had a similar problem when I downloaded model with rigg (also FBX) from website and I tried to import it. In C4D I hadn't any problems - everything was super easy, I didn't have to change even singular option during importing process. On the other hand in Blender I didn't find solution for import file with good result. I tried different settings - check that, uncheck another, and any combination didn't work. The only and quick way to import this model to Blender was first import it to C4D and export new FBX from C4D. After this additional step I finally imported the model to Blender 🙂 And it wasn't 100% perfect, there were some problems with bones. But it worked. And for me these two tests are essence. I think that in C4D this basics operations will work great. OK, I will have some problems with performance but I "get to these problems" in easy way 🙂 In Blender first I have a problem but when I will solve this problem, there will be reward for me - better performance for example. I have to add that my PC is rather old one - I bought it 8 years ago. So I can imagine that my experience could be much better 🙂 And of course this was a super quick test, all of these are only my impressions. So, to be honest, I'm surprised and I think both programs are great. I consider using both of them. Thanks!
    3 points
  4. We have quite a few coders at Maxon that come with an artist background and they are treasured. You need both, the hardcore experts on computing structures, efficiency and algorithms and those that include an artists view. Prime example might be one of the developers that laid the foundations of MoGraph.
    2 points
  5. The issue with Pablo was more deep. He had no enough knowledge of coding to manage the whole sculpting. I think it was more a problem of Blender Foundation resources than from the users. Pablo was not a coder or developer, he is an artist that went to code to improve the tools he works with.
    2 points
  6. I prefer to quote Pablo himself on a fundamental issue in the "expectations management process" (whole thread) Also, "the community" appreciates Pablo's efforts; it seems to be the usual vocal minority that criticizes Pablo for implementing certain tools instead of fundamental speedups. (While I appreciate speedups, I doubt that this was ever meant to be the focus of Pablo's work, and I also doubt that the loudmouthed demanders have any clue about how difficult and far-reaching changes in the critical foundation of a program actually are.) Now let's continue criticizing Maxon for the same thing 💥🦊☠️😇
    2 points
  7. Hi Dave. Thanks for reminding me. I had a lot of fun making that tutorial. Image attached. I'm not doing a lot of 3D these days. I haven't renewed my Modo subscription this year. They've gone a bit like Maxon with mediocre releases of late. Any 3D stuff I do is designing Lego motorcycles using a free online Lego modeller Mecabricks. So I've gone from making 3D Lego models to actually making real ones. I was doing this before but now I'm a bit more serious about it. Attached is my latest creation finished yesterday. Not quite finished as the exhaust hoses are wrong. I'm waiting for some different length hoses to arrive in the post. This is based off someone else's design but I had to deconstruct it based upon some photos they put online back in 2015. 90% their work, 10% mine. Lazareth LM 847. Has a Maserati V8 engine. I've now got about 50 Lego motorcycles in my collection. Glad I'm not still waiting for the Bodypaint / UV Editing updates promised years ago in Cinema 4D. Apart from the interface changes and a couple of small enhancements to the UV tools, nothing much has changed since I jumped ship with the dismal R17 release. Cheers Nigel / 3DKiwi
    2 points
  8. From the album: Matches' Makes

    Sculpted and textured in ZBrush, hair groomed in Cinema 4D, rendered with Arnold, and finished in Photoshop.
    1 point
  9. My rigging needs are minimal and I just need to understand how bones work. Could someone tell me why this rig I made doesn't work? I followed a tutorial but can't figure out what I did wrong. rigged tube.c4d
    1 point
  10. Hi everyone, Maybe this has been discuss in detail before but i couldn't find a specific thread otherwise please point me. Anyway, I'm on R23 but I'd like to move on to R25 soon. My obstacle is the new 'Asset Browser' which eliminates the browse your local/network drive. I've been using the 'Content browser' to 'only' access all my local content directly within C4D: 3D models, PBR materials, imperfections, etc...That's the only way I've ever used the 'content browser' for and it is a great system for me. I've never messed with C4D libraries, etc... What would be the best way for me to move on? Is there a way to move on? Am I stuck with 23/24 forever? 3rd party plugin? tutorials? Please let me know and thanks in advance!! Guille
    1 point
  11. You're not showing us what you have set in the places that matter, so we can only advise generally ! The size of the Octane final render is set in the Render Settings of Cinema, so get that correct first, and then use the safe frames feature to setup your scene correctly within the viewport. Then everything should match. CBR
    1 point
  12. I got it working. I am not a rigging expert so don't take my advice as 100% correct, but... a) hierarchy was wrong in that joints shouldn't be a child of the skin deformer. b) don't know how you bound this, but your skin deformer did not have the cylinder in its 'include' list. Fixing both of those things / doing a rebind worked for me. Here I am checking the weights for that... rigged tube CBR.c4d CBR
    1 point
  13. Good to know. Just submitted a feature request:
    1 point
  14. The most powerful combination in software development is when a user is the developer. Only with that combination will you get the tools that are both needed and work the way you need them to work. As companies grow, that pairing of abilities can be lost. If you read the job descriptions, you find more of a focus on a candidates proficiency in the core language (C++, python, etc) and who capable of transforming technical papers into code. Rarely do you see the requirement of being a 3D artist in the job description. Some companies like Insydium, overcome that gap by hiring a "resident artist" such as Mario Tran Phuc who pushes the platform to ever greater and greater capabilities. That works! Not sure if Maxon has a "resident artist" on the payroll. The closest I have seen that happen was probably in R24 as most of its new features were tailored the needs of artists like Beeple (eg, the ability to grab stuff from a library pretty efficiently and scatter them all over your work in kitbash fashion). But I am not sure if Beeple is on the Maxon payroll (nor does he need to be). Going back to Matches post, he has hit the nose square on the head: How is Maxon competing? Is it even competing? I loved this example he provided on Blenders sculpting tools vs. Z-Brushes: So when was the last time you saw Maxon quickly compete with a competitor on a new feature? Maybe with Maya on the addition of dynamic MoGraph modifier in R22 when Maya was adding fluids to their motion graphics suite of tools. Unfortunately Maxon was only able to implement particles effects while Maya was doing fluids. So points to Maya on this round. I know we all think the new "core" will bring a vast treasure trove of riches to C4D once "fully" implemented...but that transition is now looking like a 10 year journey and that is just too long in this world. Sorry, but better bevel capability should not be the only benefit we should be seeing from this new core at this point. I know there are some viewport improvements, but it seems that you need to be using Scene Nodes to appreciate that benefit. If Scene nodes is the ONLY way we will see the full manifestation of the new core, then that is a HUGE problem because it totally changes the one thing that keep users tied to C4D: the way we interact with the program. Right, wrong or indifferent, Scene nodes changes that interaction. Capsules restore a good deal of that "ease of use", but I am not seeing the increase in viewport performance -- especially with the greeble modifier. Increase the polygon count on the source object and watch C4D slow to a crawl. That is not how I thought the new core would behave. Honestly, the fastest growing development at Maxon is the license server (IMHO). Certainly more changes there than on C4D's ability to catch-up on features to the competition. Not including Redshift as the default renderer for C4D but cancelling its perpetual licensing is a one example of what is a priority to Maxon: growing revenue via subscriptions with their existing user base rather than growing the user base with new features to the software. This priority does indicate that Maxon is not even trying to compete on features. This should not be surprise to anyone as it has been the #1 complaint from the user community. Don't even try to defend it because the weight of evidence is against you (and this thread is long enough). Dave Wasn't that Per Anders? And didn't he leave? Dave
    1 point
  15. Indeed, there is need for both.
    1 point
  16. If the foundation of the Blender sculpting needs to be changed because it can't handle "enough" polys or is not "fast" enough*, then this is clearly a much more difficult issue than adding tools on the UI level. Changes in data storage / handling speed / parallelity / GPU usage need to be addressed by specialized software architects who know their craft, and it will definitely have repercussions on all Blender areas (unless it's far more modular than I believe it is). I don't know the actual Blender code (no, I'm not going to review a few million code lines now...) but it seems more like C4D's core problem, or LightWave's core problem. Change the deepest fundament, and it takes quite a while until all levels of the program have caught up with it... ...not to mention that someone needs to start the work on that ground level in the first place. * always taking into account who wants to do what with it...
    1 point
  17. I think the blender community is going to really miss Pablo Dobarro (he developed the sculpting and painting tools). And by the sounds of it, it was the community itself that drove him to quit.
    1 point
  18. I have nothing but the fondest memories of working with Rafi Barbos to get my new license with each update. Remember, this goes way back to the days when you actually got a box shipped to your house. Back around 2005, when Maxon had a heart for its hobbyists, I was only using Prime. Well, after a short call with Rafi trying to navigate the path from Prime to Studio with the next release, she understood that I was a hobbyist and gave me the upgrade to Studio for that new release for over 50% off. Per her request, I kept that deal a secret all these years. As she no longer works with Maxon (she left in 2007), I feel that our deep dark secret can finally be revealed after 16 years. Do you think a Direct Sales Manager with her level of empathy would fit in with today's Maxon? Sorry to say...I think those days are long gone. But should any Maxon employee feel differently and wish to refute that position, I am always open to saving on my next perpetual license so please feel free to PM me. Rest assured, I can keep a secret until it is no longer worth keeping no matter how long it takes. Dave
    1 point
  19. Righty - must be time for some more golf clubs (for a change) ! Very enjoyable models to make... Renders by Kane Cochran / Octane ...and some wires of course... All the quads, SDS etc etc CBR
    1 point
  20. In R25 can u create catalogues from asset browser? The only function I am after is, pointing to some directories that I have so i can browse and drag n drop my textures or files in c4d viewport. But in S24 this wasnt possible. Is that in R25? Thanks
    1 point
  21. You will need to provide the c4d file for us to have any idea what is going on here !! CBR
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Copyright Core 4D © 2023 Powered by Invision Community